Contemporary Media seen from the Right

Be careful what you wish for, so they say. Well, in Alt-Right circles, the idea of the Axis winning World War II might have some appeal. That’s what makes this Phillip K. Dick adaptation so compelling and even thrilling. It takes a look at a United States conquered by the Axis, and some of the intrigues this generates.

The geopolitics is certainly fun: everything from New York City now with a giant SS Building in the middle of it (echoes of Trump Tower?) all the way to the Mid West finding its "inner Teuton" as part of the Greater German Reich. There is also a thin sliver of "Free America" – a kind of no-man’s land or DMZ, the natural place for renegades and refugees – stretching from Denver down to Mexico. Then there is the West Coast, where instead of a patronizing interest in Zen and sushi, the Golden State and a few others are all part of the Empire of Japan. So, far so good!

Flannery O'Connor was an unapologetic, unreconstructed Southerner of staunchly Catholic and profoundly conservative orientation who wrote unsparingly dark, bleak, and violent stories. This disconcerted many readers, who couldn't understand why an author who believed in God and adhered to Christian precepts would so often dwell on such disagreeable subject matter.

Miss O'Connor gave reply in a 1957 essay titled "The Fiction Writer and His Country." It was precisely secular modernity's deadening effect on the individual conscience, she asserted, that necessitated her thematic emphasis on the sordid, the depraved, and the grotesque; people needed to be shocked, shaken up, and reminded of what was important. "To the hard of hearing you shout," she wrote, "and for the almost-blind you draw large and startling pictures."

Given the dynamics of human interaction, is it really so implausible to think that a certain clique possessed of cunning, ruthlessness, and nimble confidence should manage to work their way to global dominance? One need not posit the reality of any preternatural hocus pocus or hold to theories of invasive shapeshifters or elite alien bloodlines to comprehend the reality of Reptilian tyranny. We need not
tear off their human skin to expose their scaly bodies, nor need we reach down their mouths to pluck out their forked tongues to know who they are; just as a tree can be judged by its fruits, we can recognize the true identity of the
Reptilian by scrutinizing the behavior he displays when he thinks no one else
is paying attention.

The Reptilian’s DNA may in fact not differ markedly from our own; the Reptoidally-inclined may be
of the same essential genus and species as the rest of us, but they are still
fundamentally different in their creaturely attributes. It is crucial that we
understand the nature of this distinction, and are thus enabled to come to
terms with the fact that this type of being possesses nothing resembling what
we would call a sense of “shame”; they can speak outrageous lies without
blushing, batting an eye, or otherwise giving themselves away with any facial flinchor bodily “tell,” as is not the case with those less practiced in the flagrant
flaunting of untruth.

Look, I get it: Islam and Western values do not mix. I'm also of the opinion that Muslims – along with other non-Western peoples – should mostly reside in their countries of origin. Now, with that out of the way, can people please put an end to this fatuous fixation with the evils of Sharia? Apparently they can't, if this embarrassing story from Virginia – where schools were shut down following an Arabic calligraphy lesson – is any indication. If only these hysterical parents could devote half as much energy to resisting multiculturalism, feminism, and other manifestations of modern liberalism.

But of course, they can't, and that's where Muslim bashing comes in. I have argued before that anti-Muslim sentiment is little more than avoidance and misdirected anger. White Americans are clearly upset about their declining status, pessimistic about the US's future, and uneasy about changing demographics. Unfortunately, since white identity has been rendered so taboo, white conservatives can't take that extra step and unapologetically promote their group interests. Instead, they're stuck attacking safe targets like Muslims, who represent a tiny – and ultimately powerless – fraction of the unwelcome change that's bringing about their displacement.

In the Summer of 2014, Colin Liddell, Chief Editor of Alternative Right was interviewed by Manticore Press, who produce the excellent journal Aristokratia. The interview covered a variety of topics, including the Alt Right, paganism, the essence of aristocracy, and much else.

**************

Manticore: You have had a prolific and long writing career encompassing many different projects. When did you start writing, and what are some of the topics you have worked on over the years?

Liddell: I started writing as a teenager, when I was drawn to poetry, as many are. I liked the intensity of the medium and also the fact that it was economical with paper. I have also done a few short stories and have even attempted longer forms, but I have had no interest in the marketing side, so I let that wither and die; although I keep thinking, if Andy Nowicki can do it, so can I. Yes, he’s a real inspiration!

My first properly published material was for Riff Raff, a London-based rock magazine that existed from 1989 to around 1995, which was founded by Mark Crampton, initially a friend of my brother. My first piece for them was a live review of the Rolling Stones. Since then I have branched out to cover almost anything – economics, politics, art, philosophy, speculative science, you name it. Over the years I have been quoted by a number of eminent people, from Jack Donovan to Bono.

In many ways Christmas is a highly cinematic season. The feelings that surround the holiday are finally ineffable, better expressed in images than words. Language, wonderful tool of communication though it is, sometimes fails us when it comes to conveying the glory and beauty of truly profound occasions.

That is why, when pondering the "meaning of Christmas," one often thinks of movies: Miracle on 34th Street, It's a Wonderful Life, the many and varied cinematic incarnations of Dickens's A Christmas Carol, and so forth. Highly as I regard these and other explicitly Christmas-themed films, however, they were not the formative movies of my youth. I grew up in the '70s and '80s, and from an early age imbibed and internalized the science-fiction ethos of that time. The original Star Wars trilogy and the Indiana Jones movies thus appeal to me with more immediacy than countless, no doubt superior films from previous eras and separate genres.

Much has been said about the latest Star Wars movie, The Force Awakens. In Alt-Right circles this has tended to focus on a kind of unholy trinity of:

The malevolent Jewishness of J.J. Abrams

The malevolent casting of a Black actor in one of the two lead roles

The malevolent casting of a "kick-ass," "empowered" woman in the other lead

It is not difficult to "prove" any one of these points. Abrams is on record making negative comments about Whiteness and his desire to diversify the cast, and it is not difficult to spin these comments as maliciously anti-White or his casting as “anti-White” and “anti-male.”

The Coen brothers, a directing/producing brotherly duo, are perhaps the boldest and most creative auteurs of modern-day American cinema. Their work varies wildly; it is “all over the map,” thematically-speaking, yet always distinctively itself. Some Coen brothers’ films are bizarre and phantasmagorical; others are zanily comedic, and still others can best be described as brutally horrifying. Barton Fink is a unique combination of all three of these types, and something else besides: it is a savage satire of a Jewish-run film industry, as well as being an unflinching examination of brazen hypocrisies often seen in Jewish-led political radicalism. Joel and Ethan Coen are, of course, Jews themselves, which is perhaps why they were able to get away with such a jarringly “Semitically-incorrect” depiction in the first place. (See also Kevin MacDonald’s review of their A Serious Man.)

A chronicle of the adventures of an American soldier in Afghanistan, this book contrasts the social impact of feminism, the emotional and moral consequences of liberalism, and the breakdown of society
with the quest for raw Nietzschean survival as embodied in the process of combat and survival.

The action follows the life experiences of Tom Walton, a 20-something American who senses something is not quite right in the world. He is looking for something to hold on to, and to believe in, while he struggles to make sense of the world around him. For most of the book, his reliance falls on a young woman with whom he has found affection.

Compliance, a barely-known and rarely-discussed 2012 film written and directed by Craig Zobel, features a thoroughly unglamorous, no-name cast and is set almost entirely in the most familiar and ubiquitous of establishments: a fast-food restaurant somewhere in the heart of the large swath of country known as "Middle America." Yet this thoroughly unnerving film manages to create an atmosphere of unbearable suspense and creeping horror without introducing any blood, violence, or pyrotechnics whatsoever.

The central premise of Compliance is indeed more disquieting than any "torture porn": the movie suggests that people generally would rather obey authority, even at the expense of their own moral beliefs, than challenge or resist a supposed "man in charge." Instead of fighting, they would sooner meekly allow themselves to be degraded, molested, and violated; worse, they are at least as likely to become equally hapless instruments of degradation, molestation, and violation against others, all to avoid being a bother to someone who claims the power to demand compliance from them.

Professor Kevin MacDonald joins Andy and Colin to take a look back at the dramatic events of 2015, a year which saw Syria fall deeper into chaos, the "Muslimmivasion" of Europe by so-called "refugees," horrific terrorist attacks in Paris and California, and a fightback of sorts by Eastern European governments, the Front National in France, and most spectacularly of all by the rise of Donald Trump in the GOP primaries.

It took ten years for Canadians to have enough of Stephen Harper. His successor managed to do that in only a month. Justin Trudeau, son of the father of modern Canada, has been in power for less than two months and already he has angered the majority of Canadians. There will be no honeymoon for Vogue’s new star.

Unlike his father, who was a left wing thinker associated with Cité Libre, Justin is thought to be a shallow man, more interested in being photographed and gaining popularity than furthering an agenda. Most of his opponents, although they may deny it, thought that once ensconced in his luxurious mansion of Sussex Drive, he would not do much harm, and would be more inclined to live a socialite life rather than take actual decisions. If only they had been right!

"Arguments, whether political or philosophical, are like ammunition – you should stock up on them before the trouble starts."

That is what I told a friend of mine when he expressed surprise at my idea of writing a review for a book now almost two decades old. The friend in question is rarely impressed with my little aphorisms, so I spelled it out in more concrete terms.

Wayne LaPierre wrote Guns, Crime, and Freedom in 1994 when the country was quite divided on countless issues: immigration, gun control, gays, a new era of foreign policy, and a Democratic president who had come out of nowhere. Sounds familiar?

In great battles – one thinks here of classic Napoleonic set pieces like Austerlitz, Borodino, or Waterloo – the key to victory are the reserves. You send in this division or that one, and the enemy counters. Then, when the enemy is matching you but overcommitted, you then strike decisively with your reserves and roll him up like a rug.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times... Actually scratch that first part, and underline the second.

As we see in France – and probably later in America – the will of the people is not something the establishment is happy acknowledging, even if it has made its way through the multiple obstacles of an artificial and phony egalitarian morality, a mass media that is all false narratives, and a skewed political system where the money flows the other way.

The most they are willing to allow the people are a few token expressions. In the UK, for instance, people have the incredible "freedom" to sign e-petitions and to even have them 'debated' (i.e. briefly mentioned and then ignored) in the House of Commons if they get past a rarely reached threshold of 100,000 names. Hail the Revolution! Muh democracy!

Do you know about Maxwell's Demon? It's described this way in Wikipedia:

In the philosophy of thermal and statistical physics, Maxwell's demon is a thought experiment created by the physicist James Clerk Maxwell in which he suggested how the Second Law of Thermodynamics could hypothetically be violated. In the thought experiment, a demon controls a small door between two chambers of gas. As individual gas molecules approach the door, the demon quickly opens and shuts the door so that slow molecules pass into one chamber and fast molecules pass into the other chamber. Because faster molecules are hotter, the demon's behavior causes one chamber to warm up as the other cools, thus decreasing entropy and violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics. [link]

And that is of course a fantasy concocted to show how entropy works. But the immigration version of Maxwell's Demon is also a fantasy, but it's accepted as a fact across the political spectrum, from the most (heh!) 'ethical' libertarian to the ditziest liberal to the most narcissistic neocon. Maxwell's Immigration Demon is, however, as much a fantasy as its thermodynamic original.

After the second round of the French regional elections and the cynical way the Front National was excluded from power, it is time to re-run this article, which was originally published at the time of the French Presidential elections in May 2012. In the first round of that election Marine Le Pen managed to poll 17.9% of the vote and failed to make it into the second round.

The trouble with European politics is that the so-called “extreme” parties are not really extreme enough. This is especially clear from the case of France, where the comparatively mild policies of the Front National have been described throughout the campaign as “extreme” and “far right-wing.”

Like most people, I am not a fan of extremism. But we live in an era when extreme things are happening all around us, so to act with conventional moderation is the equivalent of turning down the heating when the house is on fire.

Centuries of history, including scores of major wars, dozens of invasions and revolutions, and tens of millions slaughtered in battle, have not sufficed to change the ethnic and cultural character or France. However, mass immigration and differential birth rates threaten to do what the likes of Attila the Hun, Moslem Crusaders, English longbowmen, French Revolutionaries, and German panzers failed to do: i.e. change France in its very essence.

This is a stimulating and readable collection of essays that I found myself both agreeing and disagreeing with. In the Germanic tradition of wanderlust, the author Welf Herfurth takes us through a personal account of his political journey, both metaphorical and actual, as Herfurth turns out to be something of a globe hopper.

This is the kind of anthology that is sure to resonate with any European nationalist, while having enough crossover appeal to be pushed in the direction of any fence-sitting or Left-leaning “normie” friend, with Welf acting the role as a personable guide into politically incorrect territory and taboo viewpoints. The book can be viewed as a Right-wing version of Rules for Radicals, where its strengths lie in its pragmatic and practical approach to political activism. It opens with an introduction and a preface respectively by New Right veterans Troy Southgate and Tomislav Sunic.

A great graphic that compares poll numbers with the ad spending of Republican candidates. The message is unmistakable. Trump has spent hardly anything, but is well in the lead. Meanwhile the establishment's former favourite, Jeb Bush, almost seems to be crushed under the enormous amount of money lavished on him by donors, and then poured into ineffectual advertisements.

Showing his face to Republican voters has obviously backfired. Maybe the wisest move Jeb could make at the present would be to invest in a brown paper bag with a couple of eye holes and a name change. In the words of his worthy opponent, he is a "total loser" with "zero cred" who will be "fired like a dog."

The latest Muslim atrocities in the West (Paris, San Bernadino, and London) have been met with the frantic recitation of the liberal internationalist’s favourite mantra to explain away such terrorism, namely, it is not committed by Muslims.

The attack in the Leytonstone tube station in outer London set the ball rolling in Britain when the lone black attacker shouted “This is for Syria” prompting the response “You ain’t no Muslim bruv” from an onlooker, a black Londoner judged by his accent and the fact that he addressed the attacker as “bruv,” a term only common amongst blacks in Britain. The context also suggests that the man is a Muslim.

This map (a copy of which can be found here) takes the standard red-blue map of how people voted at the last presidential election, and then factors in race (and for some reason Mormonism!). The key thing to emerge (aside from the fact that the Mormons are well on their way to creating a breakaway state) is that Republicans exist as kind of buffer or intermediate zone between between non-Whites who vote Democrat and Whites who do so, and probably help "facilitate" the latter.

What is Donald Trump up to with his latest comment about a moratorium on Muslims? First of all, it’s just something he said on the campaign trail, a straw thrown to the wind to see which way it's blowing. It can be backed away from if necessary and it doesn’t tie him down or commit him to anything solid.

But what it does do is improve his position with certain key groups that Trump needs to win over or keep a hold off, while also emphasing once again what makes Trump such a special and different politician.

Their brush with one another was the paradigmatic encounter between the Celebrity and the Nobody, the "have" and the "have-not" of the postmodern age, an era which hypocritically blasts endless PSAs about "equality," "democracy," and "self-esteem" while implicitly deriding non-celebrities as losers, wastes of space, and living beings unworthy of life.

The meeting outside of Manhattan's tony Dakota building between John Winston Ono Lennon and Mark David Chapman would result in the former's murder and the latter's lifelong incarceration. It would provoke numerous public expressions of grief from hundreds of thousands of people who felt their lives were somehow affected by the death of a man they'd never met.

The maturation of the “Me Generation” who brought us the shift to liberal-leaning regimes across the West received little coherent exposition before this book. However with Bobos In Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There, David Brooks explicates the rise of BOBOs — “bourgeois bohemians” — as a fusion of 1960s values and 1980s methods.

In exploring this fusion, Brooks carefully and humorously reveals the underpinning of the ideological motivation of these people, which is 1968 itself — albeit tempered with a taste for what we hoped won the Cold War, which is the cornucopia of the fruits of personal liberty and free markets. the “bourgeois bohemians” are actually hybrids of yuppies and hippies.

This group appeared in the 1990s and that is where Brooks centers his book. In his view, they came to power as a replacement for the old WASP hierarchy in America. While that ancient regime operated by knowing the right people, and having the right family, this new regime accelerates those who have the right education, the right careers and the right beliefs and lifestyle choices. Brooks shows us a new elite trying to justify itself with claims that it morally deserves what it has.

Eventually the day will come when thepeople outside the machines will switch off the people inside the machines. When that day comes, those inside the machines will be living in their little self-defined bubbles, with their self-referential morality – mutually supported by their carefully selected in-group of fellow freaks and degenerates, brought together by the power of the internet to give them the illusion of normalcy.

But the people outside the machines will see them for what they are, abominations, who, by gathering together in the blinkered darkness of cyberspace, thought that normalcy was freakish, and their freakery normal.

Author’s note: This article was written for the December issue of the German New Right’s bi-monthly magazine Sezessionpublished by the Institut für Staatspolitik (State Policy Institute). The article aims to give the German audience, which for the most part does not even know an American “real” right exists, a basic overview of the AltRight in a first attempt to close ranks. Due to length limitations, some simplifications and omissions could not be avoided. I apologize in advance for these. Translated by the author.

***********

On October 31st, 2015, while the average American attended Halloween parties that had been arranged weeks in advance, the Arlington/VA based National Policy Institute (NPI) held its annual conference. This time at the prestigious National Press Club in Washington, D.C.—little more than 400 yards away from the White House.

You already know about #Swebola and Angela Merkel importing millions of "potential rapists" into Europe, and more recently we have also seen the French making excuses for their halal butchers. Europe certainly is a pozztopia of PC pozzing!

Of course, there are countervailing trends – in Sweden and France, lite nationalist parties (Swedish Democrats and Front National) are currently riding high in the polls, and the Overton window is bouncing all over the place – but what people see is mainly the abject surrender to the forces of the Left. From a distance Europe does seem to be all about "the Pozz."

Progressives use every man's natural fear of showing fear to manipulate him — inventing fake "phobias" and implying he is afraid of everything they want. But what men are truly afraid of are the legal, social and financial consequences associated with challenging the progressive agenda.

Progressives only have one good trick, and men keep falling for it.

They keep calling you a coward, so that you’ll do or say whatever they want to prove that you are not a coward.

If they want you to accept a group of outsiders, they call you a xenophobe to dismiss any rational concerns you might have about the motivations of strangers. The only way to prove you don’t have an irrational fear of foreigners is to welcome them with open arms and without questions.

If you question the sanity of a man who can’t be “who he really is” until someone surgically removes his dick, they call you a transphobe. The only way to prove you’re not afraid of trannies is to agree that transsexuals are not only sane, but heroic, and should be welcomed into any women’s restroom.

After an attack, our politicians and media like to slam the barn door really hard to show that escaped horse that it was wrong. Many people have made many statements about how to stop terrorism, and almost all of them are unrealistic and wrong.

Terrorism arose from guerrilla warfare and succeeds the same way guerrilla warfare does: by convincing the people making the decisions that there are too many costs of doing business to make it worth continuing to participate.

In the American Revolution, the guerrillas made a king back down after heavy losses; in the Vietnam war, the guerrillas learned a new weapon: the television. If they could get a whole lot of voters, who we all know are useful idiots, to panic and emote over what they see on the teevee screen, then the guerrillas win because the politicians will retreat.